On Friday the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his government would build 3,000 more homes in the east of Jerusalem and West Bank, and continue planning a development in the most contentious area known as E1.

Israel would also withhold $100 million in tax revenues it has collected from the already poor Palestinian Authority.

To put it simply, the new settlement dooms any chances of a two-state solution as it would split the northern and southern parts of the West Bank. Palestinians (rightly) wouldn’t come to the negotiating table without it being dismantled. The US response has been typically muted and craven, at least in public.

In the past I have been sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but also to Israeli concerns. I support a two-state partition along 1967 borders. I don’t believe Israel should be dissolved as a state (it’s here and it will continue to exist), and I believe Hamas are an anti-semitic terrorist outfit (albeit one that run Gaza and will have to be talked to). I didn’t support Israeli military incursions but I didn’t support Hamas either.

Now the Israeli government says it will look into building another1,700 housing units beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem.

All this simply because the Palestinians wanted more recognition at the UN – a move even the last Israeli PM Ehud Olmert supported.

There is only one conclusion I can derive from this: the Israeli government is absolutely not committed to peace and a two-state solution. It would prefer to keep over a million Palestinians hostage in an open-air prison and punish them at will.

An already ridiculous situation has crossed a major red line. Worse, there’s no dissent from the key British Jewish organisations; the Board of Deputies published a statement criticising Palestinian attempts to get UN recognition, but have said nothing about the latest (clearly illegal) settlements.

The old argument that a boycott of Israeli goods would only push the country further away from negotiations and hinder peace has become obsolete. The Israeli government flouts international law and keeps taking more Palestinian territory regardless.

To give Israel a clear signal that the international community will not tolerate this, I can’t see any other option than a boycott of Israeli goods left any more.

Reader comments

This is spot on. I’ve been consistently against boycotts throughout the many years they’ve been under discussion – I think they’re counterproductive, plain and simple.

We’re now beyond the point where that’s an issue, though. There’s basically nobody who matters left to alienate; the whole system is now explicitly aimed at imposing Israel’s will on the Palestinians. If people object to that, there’s pretty much nothing else they can do beyond a) complaining on the internet or b) not buying Israeli goods. In light of recent developments, b) looks like the only decent option.

It’s too late, of course, but then I suspect it was too late decades ago.

I can’t say I agree, because the debate hasn’t been had. The likes of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign have never been properly challenged. Are you willing to now join with them? To go along to their dempnstrations with their ”From the river to the sea” placards and their Yvonne Ridley-like speakers?
Personally I’d have nothing to do with them.

The thing about E1 is that it was never going to be allowed to become part of the Palestinian state.
!969 borders were mentioned in the OP. There’s no way that Israel is going to go back to those. It looks like people are not dealing with the reallity of the new situatiuon.
Why not face the fact that a two state solution might be impossible? Another solution might be for Jordan to take over parts of the West Bank. They could offer the Israelis security and self-govrnment for Palestinians in the WB.

A boycott wouldn’t be nearly good enough. The only option is clear, the EU (at the very least) must start imposing sanctions against Israel, to be followed with potential military action if Israel’s belligerence continues unabated.

@5 Well there’s no point going for things which can’t happen. The pre-1968 borders are never going to be workable. Israel supporters all seem to think that the border has to be negotiated, and that they will give up some of their settlements as part of an agreement coming from negotiation, not give up that land and then begin negotiation.

Re: Sunny’s wording: “Hamas…(albeit one that run Gaza and will have to be talked to)…”. Yes, they do run Gaza as they were voted for by the Palestinians. And yes, they will “have to be talked to” as you put it.

I have no intention to boycott ‘Israeli goods’, but it’s good you’ve expanded your argument to something less easy to replace than an Intel processor.

And for anyone (doubtful) that’s interested, my displeasure at Intel would be down to their unethical business practices rather than the technology they stole from Israel (at least I think they stole it, that’s what they’re good at). That aside, I do have an Intel-equipped notebook, because AMD-equipped notebooks are somewhat hard to come by these days.

“Yes, they do run Gaza as they were voted for by the Palestinians. And yes, they will “have to be talked to” as you put it.”

Yes, in that famous one-time-only election…

As for whether the Israelis will feel obliged to ‘talk to’ people whose own Charter commits it to the extermination of every single Jew, that’s a different matter. Not sure I would want the British government to ‘talk to’ a popular regime committed to exterminating every single Briton. Perhaps you would, though.

“To put it simply, the new settlement dooms any chances of a two-state solution as it would split the northern and southern parts of the West Bank. Palestinians (rightly) wouldn’t come to the negotiating table without it being dismantled.”

Am I the only person confused by your assertion that building the new settlements dooms chances of a two state solution whereas refusal to negotiate is commended? Not wishing to quibble I would have thought that firing hundreds of rockets into Israel was a genuine attempt to doom the two state solution. Refusing to allow Jews to live in the proposed Palestinian state could be considered likewise …. but that’s getting into the detail…… and apparently nobody is interested in the detail as far as detailed negotiations are concerned.

The Israeli government has lost the battle of supplying images to support their position, which given the Palestinians refusal to negotiate is rather silly.

I suggest the Israelis initiate negotiations, turn up at the venue and are filmed sitting quietly at a table waiting for the Palestinians to turn up. Being filmed on live TV day-in day-out for a number of months “Little Brother’s Not in The House!” would give a clearer picture that it is not only they who are to blame for the impasse. It might even give the Palestinian Authority a bit of a wake up call if it thought EU voters might ask why is their much needed money being spent on people who they could see by their absence are not prepared to resolve their predicament via the agreed means. Indeed why should they? The money is coming in, their people are used to dreadful living standards and negotiating means making commitments which reduce their scope to manoeuvre and will embolden their direct political enemies.

But that would recognise it’s not just about goodies and baddies wouldn’t be in keeping with the “Look Behind You!” spirit of the pantomime season which some of the BDS comments suggest is well underway.

PS: If I were Abbas I wouldn’t be in too much of a hurry to get round the negotiating table unless I was terminally ill because the prospects of being discredited as a sell out and knocked off by Hamas.

Does anyone feel as though this is a last gasp land-grab from an Israel facing defeat on just about all fronts?

The USA has been become entirely isolated as a broker in the Middle East now, largely because Israel has asked them (and they complied) to support too many acts and positions that just didn’t chime with the entire rest of the world. And that leaves Israel with no powerful voice on its side.

Europe meanwhile has now reached a stage of backing semi-statehood for Palestine regardless of Israel’s actions – on the back of peaceful diplomacy and UN observer status.

Hamas effectively won the mini war in Gaza recently, with Israel neither able to halt longer range rockets reaching key target areas, nor able to apply any new economic pressure to extract consessions in the “peace” agreement.

And more countries have started openly discussing direct financial support to the Palestinian Authority and thus effectively ignoring Israel as a factor.

As such – surely all Israel are doing now is ensuring that when Palestine eventually has the capacity to socially cleans its nation of illegal settlements (and maybe legal ones) the world will largely accept that horror as a price worth paying for peace that prevents Israel using settler security as an excuse to invade and that ensures no other country sees colonisation as a protected route to expanding its borders.

Well, Hamas are unsavory for sure, but they’re a product of what Israel has done, aren’t they? To use Hamas as an excuse for prolonging the occupation was always a dirty ploy.

If it were another country doing the oppressing we’d have a better chance of peace, but Israel’s close relationship to the US is a big obstacle. How can you isolate a country if it’s the best friend of the most powerful nation on Earth?

Frankly, America’s attitude to Israel is appalling and it’s stomach churning to see Obama and the like (and our government) trot out the same old crap about how the Palestinians like totally have it coming and don’t deserve the basic rights and freedoms we enjoy.

“But what would happen if the Palestinian Authority turned up – in their own laughable publicity stunt?”

Firstly the word laughable in your comment suggests the Palestinians are not above publicity stunts. I rather like the recent one in Gaza of the guy filmed dying on a stretcher who walked passed the camera a few minutes later. Whilst it made me laugh I’m sure it garnered a lot of sympathy from less critical viewers.

The sad part is the Palestinians spend far more time avoiding the negotiating table than thinking about how to corner the Israelis once they are there.

Not until the Palestinians rediscover the benefits of trade and the stability and wealth of commerce will there emerge a homegrown culture strong enough to rival the brinkmanship and futility of their current political leadership.

Try looking at it from the other angle:
If you were the Israelis and had witnessed first hand the Palestinian’s inability to reconcile the position they found themselves in following the division of the Mandate of Palestine, the invasions, the wars, the niggling assaults, the cat and mouse attempts at starting negotiations, the rejected offers – would you really think the Palestinians wanted the two state solution? I doubt it. Especially considering they’re in no hurry.

That would have been a better title for the OP in my opinion.
And it also seems to admit that it’s not really bothering to pay too much attention to people with the other point of view. It’s like people prefer to have their own little spaces free of criticism and engagement.

This guy is going to do a two minute slot after the Channel 4 News this evening. At least he’s upfront enough to go on the TV and give his point of view.
I strongly disagree with it though. He thinks that Britain has a really bad problem with anti-Semitism, but only gives examples of Al-Quds demos and pro-Palestinian meetings.

But I don’t boycott any other country and don’t particularly want to start with Israel. The BDS movement has made the idea of a boycott so strongly associated with Israel that it means people who are displeased with Israel’s actions are more likely to respond by boycotting than they are in relation to other countries who do worse.

@16. Lamia: “Yes, in that famous one-time-only election…” — with reference to Gaza.

Perhaps we should be looking at two Palestinian governments as they exist now. That is not where we should be going, but it is the scenario that we have to understand.

The Gaza Strip is run by Hamas, the ones who chuck rockets at Israel. Gaza is a tiny piece of land and is densely populated. Nobody in Gaza can escape from Hamas who control government and civil society. Gaza contains about 40% of the population in occupied land.

The West Bank is run by the former Palestinian National Authority which roughly equates to the old PLO. The PLO was largely a secular organisation although non-Muslim voices are now heard less often. All the same, the former Palestinian National Authority is a more reasonable organisation. The former Palestinian National Authority does not fire rockets at neighbouring citizens and conflict is vaguely understandable.

Unfortunately for those living in or trying to run the West Bank, it covers a big area of land where some Israelis wish to live for religious or commercial reasons. Conflicts may occur over resource access or from envy (Israeli settlers appear to be more prosperous).

In practice, there are two Palestinian governments with separate territories and different agendas. Hamas are an organisation of hate but we cannot project agreement with their aims on all of the citizens of Gaza. Rhe former Palestinian National Authority are not all cuddly people.

The land defined as E1 is to the east of Jerusalem in the West Bank. Which thankfully for everyone there is not controlled by Hamas.

Maybe the E1 proposition is a gaming chip? To divide the two Palestinian governments further?

If that’s what winning a war looks like I’d be interested in what you think losing a war is.

If you are old enough you might recall it was only in the 7th and 8th rounds that Ali survived George Foreman’s pounding to win the fight. Last month’s flare up in Gaza didn’t even reach the end of round 1.

I’ve long held a view on the Middle East that both sides are as sickeningly awful as eachother.

However, increasingly I don’t quite hold that view any more. The Israeli government and Hamas are both still horrendous and will hopefully all burn in hell one day. But the West Bank’s leaderhip has won me around to thinking it might actually be different. Yes they use propoganda. But so do all political sides of every debate. And their situation is more severe and thus their propoganda tends to be. (Same is true of Israel’s government – and I don’t condemn that either).

And at the same time the West Bank hasn’t been killing neighbouring peoples for a while now. It has been engaging in global diplomacy for a while now too. It has also been directing aid towards nation building in the traditional sense (growing the economy, establishing the normal institutions of state, building infrastructure, etc) for a while now too.

And it is working. They are becoming a state. The world is recognising that more and more. Their economy is growing well (according to the IMF). Their diplomatic relations are more diverse. They now only get a fifth of their international aid from arab states, with the USA and EU donating larger and larger funds to support the good progress there.

Whether you, I or the Israeli government like it or not – the two state solution is effectively happening.

Israel should try to recognise this and adapt to it.

A growing west bank economy and relative freedom there will hit the people of Gaza hard – where Hamas have mismanaged to an incredible scale to the extent that gdp per head there is way behind the West Bank. If they achieve international standing through diplomatic rather than violent means – it completely undermines Hamas among its own population.

Likewise, Israel has interests in the West Bank. It has companies there and settlements there. Allienating those who will in not so many years time have the power to eject all of those people and companies is just stupid. Better to make friends and seek arrangements for those people to be accepted as part of the West Bank.

Because while they might think that building punishment settlements is a pro-settlement act – it is in fact likely to push the international community to back the expulsion of the Jews from the West Bank. As horrendous as that sounds, the same was done as part of a peace plan to Germans in Eastern Europe in the late 40s. And it would be hard to stop it if Israel continues a virulent position that makes it plausible Israel would invade on the excuse of protecting settlements.

Hence my post – it feels a bit like the kid (Israel) who threatens to take its ball away when it doesn’t get its own way – but whose threat has become blunt since there is another ball to play with.

@29. margin4error: “The Israeli government and Hamas are both still horrendous and will hopefully all burn in hell one day. But the West Bank’s leaderhip has won me around to thinking it might actually be different.”

I was writing my rant at the same time as you. Thank you for your eloquence and perspicacity.

The healthy performance of the economy on the West Bank is the the most likely thing to encourage the kind of stability which can lead to a two state solution. However (there always is a however isn’t there?) the Palestinian politics is particularly hard to steer towards this goal as agreement with the Israelis will require negotiation and compromise in order to get there.

Therein lies the rub. The Palestinians leadership have told their people that their demands are non-negotiable for so long that extreme resistance is inevitable and whoever agrees to compromise and they would be replaced by their rivals who would call them sell-outs.

Whilst the Israelis can see the PA is a preferable partner to Hamas the ease with which Hamas disposed of the the PA following the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza a few years ago doesn’t suggest the same isn’t likely to happen in the West Bank were Abbas to make the necessary compromises through negotiation. The withdrawal from Gaza was test which the Palestinians declined to demonstrate stability through effective government. Instead it became an example of how wishful thinking rarely overcomes the actions of those who enjoy fighting just as they are.

If a government’s first duty is to protect their own citizens I find it difficult to see how Israel could negotiate away their territorial advantage they hold in the West Bank if they genuinely suspect it is just a matter of time before Hamas take over.

All of this before Israel tries to negotiate as hard a bargain as they possibly can.

You’d have thought that Israel would have had such a concern for their citizens before proceeding to occupy Palestinian territory and build illegal settlements. It Abbas takes this to the ICC, then Israel will run out of places to go. It will be Israel forced to make concessions in any peace deal, and Israel that faces international punishment and condemnation for failure to comply.

Couple of points
a) you don’t need to boycott everything israel to force israel to comply with international law, and un resolutions. Just a few will do the trick
b) israel didn’t create everything the hasberah crowd say they did, mostly small little hi tech outfits have been set up in israel that are tied to certain industry leaders such as google, intel. This is more of making it difficult to cut ties, rather than any meaningful dependency on these products/services

c) The solution is to take israel back to 1967, I would prefer 1947 borders. Israel whatever the situation is doomed to the history books its inevitable. They have been unable to intergrate and be accepted into the region (they never will be), and only exist because of being artifically propped up by lobby groups such as the labour friends of israel

d) Hamas is no less an antisemetic terrorist government than The past 50 years of Israeli Governments are anti arab terrorists.

Zionism is the worst thing that has ever happened to world jewry, and the consequences of its actions and its statements that it reprsents world jewry will be far more terrible than anything the world has witnessed before.
If only they would listen to a 1000 years of Jewish Sages who considered what they have created an abomination

“You’d have thought that Israel would have had such a concern for their citizens before proceeding to occupy Palestinian territory and build illegal settlements”

You probably don’t remember that in 1967 when Israel went into Gaza and the West Bank they were under the control of Egypt and Jordan respectively – not the Palestinians. Indeed the Egyptians and Jordanians were there ‘illegally’ but no one gave two hoots about it, least of all the Palestinians who were more preoccupied with wishing Israel away.

In 1967 Israel’s concerns for it’s citizens was upmost when despite international assurances to the contrary the Suez canal closed to them they fought the 6 day war on the eve of being invaded.

Was it wise to build the settlements – perhaps not. Was it illegal to build them – no more than anything constructed there by either the Egyptians or Jordanians in the preceding 19 years.

Talking of the ICC as you were …. will anyone be challenging the PLO’s assertions that the future Palestinian state is to be free of Jews? I somehow doubt it, even though I can’t imagine any other member of the UN being allowed to propose equivalent segregations.

“Zionism is the worst thing that has ever happened to world jewry, and the consequences of its actions and its statements that it reprsents world jewry will be far more terrible than anything the world has witnessed before.”

Far more terrible? And there was I thinking 1933 to 45 was something special.

I can’t wait until you complete your missing item d) to find out how bad it’s going to get.

The BDS movement has made the idea of a boycott so strongly associated with Israel that it means people who are displeased with Israel’s actions are more likely to respond by boycotting than they are in relation to other countries who do worse.

Just out of interest Sarah, how many other countries blockade and hold over a million people in an open air prison, so I could boycott them too? It’s not like I’m a big fan of the North Korean govt either.

To be honest i am not sure why Sunny puts up with most of you.
Start your own site and see how many visitors you get and stop leeching from the LC.
Most people do not read the comments anyway.
140 Characters might bring some discipline to the comments.
Sorry for my grammar.

Using the million people in an open prison argument doesn’t go anywhere IMO, as it will be argued that Egypt could open the border if it wanted to.
Also it’s a bit hard to ignore the rocket firing coming from Gaza.
But I did say this subject was hopeless. I can’t even comment on Harry’s Place without roundly being told to F off everytime I leave a comment.
About six times since you started back up btw Sarah.

Sunny – I agree with damon that one could invoke Egypt in relation to Gaza. You didn’t suggest that Gaza was prompting you to boycott, but the action over the WB. It is also my own opinion that there is more to criticise Israel for WRT the WB. There seems to be a vicious cycle in play whereby the blockade causes understandable anger, which drives the attacks in Israel, which don’t exactly cause Israel to want to soften their stance. I would not assert that Israel has *no* responsibility for Gaza’s plight – but I think that Hamas’s and Egypt’s roles should not be forgotten. And other countries in the region don’t have a great record when it comes to their Palestinian refugees.

Just out of interest Sarah, how many other countries blockade and hold over a million people in an open air prison, so I could boycott them too? It’s not like I’m a big fan of the North Korean govt either.

I think the crimes of China in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya, and India/Pakistan/Chine(again!) in Kashmir are at least as grave as those of Israel in Palestine. think we will wait for a long time before there are any calls to boycott those countries. Why only Israel? What is it that is different about Israel? Some questions are imponderable.

Straw man. Israel is not the only state that people protest against, boycott and so on. You may remember a few people preferring not to buy South African goods back in the day. If someone wants to write a few paragraphs criticising Israel, they are not required to spend as much time discussing every other country for “balance”.

I think its important to recognise the basics of the issue.
Israel was not created by consent of the people who occupied Palestine. It was granted by a third party.
Was Israel grateful? Not a bit of it. From the inception of Israel there has been an overwhelming impetus to grab land from other Arab countries. From a people that like to shout anti-semetic at any criticism of Israel ,I am regularly surprised by the open racism and hypocrisy proffered by Israels supporters.

I think its important to recognise that despite its ‘western appearance’ its is really a religious state along the lines of Iran. Its prominance in the middle east and its destablising influence to the whole area has been dependant on American support and its errant importance. It is entirely unsurprising therefore that the Palestinians have adopted the same strategy as Begin and Gurion. Its the only strategy available to the underdog.

On that basis whilst a boycott is important it is merely symbolic. The politics that needs to be opposed is not in Israel , its in the US and in the material and ideological support that jewish elites that nourish the continuing lawlessness. Until the US detaches from Israel there will be no movement.

Getting the US to drop Israel would require a legislative change. Obama tried going down that path in his first term with the whole ‘being friendly with the middle east’ act, but it didn’t catch on. The Republicans will be looking at any excuse to erode his influence, and siding with the Palestinians is a sure-fire way to stop him getting anything else done for the rest of his term.

But if you’re wondering why Israel is being singled out for a proposed rare major boycott, I’ll say the following:

1) Almost any boycott will be intended to be major by the people proposing it. So at present this only looks different because we haven’t seen what the take-up will be.

2) Israel is an interesting case where other solutions are not wanted and some reasons to avoid boycotts are not present. It’s been there long enough not to be an invading force, so most pro-Palestinians in the West would not support the land being returned to Palestine. People worry about boycotts because they may harm those you wish to help, but that’s not really a factor here because it’s Israel’s foreign policy that’s the issue. And so on.

As a general rule, on both sides there’s too much of “You have an unusual stance on Israel because they’re Jewish!”, when it often makes more sense to say “you have an unusual stance on Israel because its situation is unusual!”

may be down to the perception that Israeli atrocities and land grabbing are supported by the US and are contributing to a destabilization of the area. Also because Israel likes to think of itself as a western country but behaves like a belligerent religious dictatorship towards its neighbours and to other States.
Maybe also because it hypocritically milks ‘the holocaust’ (only one?) as an ideological shield to mitigate its land grabbing and malicious treatment both Palestinians and boats in international waters.
Finally perhaps because its a country with an ideology of violent supremacy.I don’t think that goes down well in Europe.
I suspect there are many more resonances.

Along with its “friend of the west” positioning, it’s democratic, and I think we tend to judge democracies more quickly (although we also probably call for less dramatic sanctions against them). Plus there’s simply a lot of media focus on the Middle East, creating a vicious cycle where the issues there seem more immediate just because we hear a lot about them. And then the religious split creates automatic pro- and anti-groups, and leads to mutual accusations of bigotry between supporters of each side, further polarising and antagonising the debate.

36. Kojak
here are some breif comments from some of the most renowned jewish sages, who say it is an abomination, and the result is complete destruction of the jewish people – god forbid

In this book, in chapter 26, Rabbi Yitchak Aramah states that the Decree of Exile for the Jewish People is so serious that even if the Jewish People were to terminate the Exile from the Holy land ONE DAY before the willing of G-D, the entire People would be in great danger by virtue of having violated the prohibition of ending the Exile as discussed in the Talmudic Tractate Kesuboth 111.

The following is a letter from Rabbi Aryeh Leib Alter, known as the Sfas Emes, which he wrote early in the Zionist period:

Now behold Satan has come and confused the world….A thick cloak rest over the eyes of the leaders of the Zionists. ONLY OWING TO THEIR LACK OF FAITH AND ABSENCE OF BELIEF IN G-D DO THEY FAIL TO REALIZE THE EXTENT OF THE DANGER INVOLVED IN THEIR PROMISES TO THE MASSES OF THE PEOPLES AMONG WHOM WE LIVE, OF ALL THE WORLDLY DELIGHTS PROVIDED THEY GIVE AID TO THE ZIONISTS. THEY EVEN URGE THEM TO EXPEL JEWS FROM THEIR MIDST. Every sensible person will realize the help they are providing the enemies of the Jewish People.

Quotes from Rabbi Yechezkel Shraga Halberstam The Divrei Yechzkel of Shinova
The great rabbi from Shinova, who was the son of the holy Sanzer Rabbi of Poland said this 100 years ago, at the dawn of Zionism:
“You should know, that when a Jew recites ‘Hear O Israel, G-d is our Lord, G-d is One’ he should have in mind to reject all idolatry in the world, and Zionism is also idolatry, and he must reject it as well.”

The following is a letter written by the famous Rabbi Tzadok Hakohen of Lublin, Poland, before World War II:

Concerning the Zionists can be applied the verse: He who observes the wind will not sow, and he who beholds clouds will not reap.

The Zionists sow wheat and reap thorns, and EVEN SHOULD THE WORK OF SATAN PROSPER, eventually *******there could be a horrible end, G-d forbid*******.

The Jewish People appear to be in this hour like a ship sailing in the heart of the sea without oars in a tempest. The helmsmen have been struck by blindness.

Do we not know that the whole purpose of the eventual Redemption is to improve ours ways and observe the Torah with all the protections our sages ordained for us? WHAT HOPE IS THERE FOR US IF THOSE WHO BLASPHEME THE TORAH SHOULD, HEAVEN FORBID, BECOME MEN OF POWER AND INFLUENCE?

BUT THE CONCLUSION IS TO BE DRAWN THAT IF THE ZIONISTS GAIN DOMINION THEY WILL SEEK TO REMOVE FROM THE HEARTS OF ISRAEL BELIEF IN G-D AND IN THE TRUTH OF THE TORAH. ALL THE INTENT OF THESE INCITERS AND SEDUCERS IS TO CAST ISRAEL INTO INFIDELITY, WHICH IS DESTRUCTION.

Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, Al Ha-Geulah ve-al Ha-Temurah, pp. 85-86
Every single moment that they hold on to their State and government they are reviling G-d in their violation of the Three Oaths through their provocation and rebellion against the Nations, which is prohibited by the Torah, and which brings about the severe punishment for violating the Oaths, as it is written in the Talmud in the tractate Ketuboth, p. 111: … All the more by virtue of this wicked heretical regime that is bringing down the immeasurable anger of G-d against the Jewish People.

I am wondering if and what threads of antisemitism are actually working here. Its clear that have been failures to integrate throughout history and not on the part of jews.(I am thinking of the failure of Bildung and the jewish enlightment in Europe)

In secular society are these resonances likely to pervade I wonder, and, if so, what sustains them? Clearly from the pro Jewish contributors a lot of racism emerges but from the average lefty isn’t it just a case of finding the injustice unacceptable particularly when it is funded and sustained by the Ultra right.

On the point of the focus in western democracies I actually think the position is quite nuanced and contradictory as the recent TV coverage has shown.
Only Turkey has made a real stand and that’s after Israeli murdered 9 of their people.

Ideologically Israel might be regarded as the west but I wonder whether a rogue state full of Gods chosen people can really equate to the non secular mentality of a mature western democracy. Nonetheless because of alliances with the particularly the Right and Ultra right in the west and widespread fear of all that is Muslim they retain an unassailable position.

Would Sunny’s idea ever work?
Many would argue that Israel would have to freeze over before the cat would get half a chance!

Boycotts don’t work.
Are we going to boycott China.
No.
Better supporting the opposition in Israel to bring sanity to certain sections of the Israeli government.
Perhaps cut the giant subsidy to Israel, the largest in history. Hurrah for Ron Paul

Straw man. Israel is not the only state that people protest against, boycott and so on. You may remember a few people preferring not to buy South African goods back in the day.

The thrust of the article is that Israel is now so far beyond the pale that a boycott simply must happen, so it is reasonable to ask ‘why only Israel’? What is is about Israel that is different? What makes people feel so urgently the need to criticise or delegitimise it?

Which other national boycotts are being called for though? I really haven’t heard of any.

martin luther king once said anti zionism is just a cover for anti semtism,dont let the left fool you,the biggest fool is the fool that fools himself,sunny hundai in my opinion is a dangerous anti semite who uses the cover of anti zionism like most people on the far left to express there anti semtic hatred,these racists must be outed.

As far I make out the two countries facing boycotts are Israel and Denmark.
Israel for being Israel as much as anything else as the Arab League’s boycott from the late 1940’s onwards an Denmark for having the temerity to allow the Mo cartoons.

I think Israel is in very good company here. Strange that none if the countries who advocates of BDS like to accuse opponents of “Straw Man” arguments are included. No China, no Burma, no Russia, no Turkey,
no Syria etc etc. Obviously Israel and Denmark’s actions far outweigh any other nation’s.

Do you or anyone else on LC support the boycott of Denmark as well? Obviously there are people who think they should be punished until they change their behavior of failing to prevent freedom of expression.

“,sunny hundai in my opinion is a dangerous anti semite who uses the cover of anti zionism …..”

I think you are mistaken about Sunny’s views and his motives.
I’ve never met the guy but he appears to be a left leaning person who, since he became an advocate for the Labour party in 2010, follows the gentle drift of anti-Israel opinion whose poses as pro-Palestinian advocacy.
My opinion of him is that he has the gumption to organise this platform for us and monitors it in a sensible way and should be congratulated rather than accused of things he isn’t.

However regarding I/P he appears to be Showing less scrutiny of the Palestinian side of the argument. I put this down to him being young and probably never having had to physically fight his way out of a situation – and gained the insight that sometimes you might find yourself in a fight and the only thing to do is get on and win it rather than ponder how it has happened.

The term anti-Zionist makes me laugh because it is so obvious what lies near by. You don’t here people say “I’m anti-(you fill in the nation)ist”. Why this particular form if nationalism is objected to beyond all others is a mystery – especially to recent recuits who are certain of what they are not.

“Obviously Israel and Denmark’s actions far outweigh any other nation’s.”

The only thing that’s obvious here is that certain people WANT Israel to be unfairly singled out because that allows them to engage in whataboutery rather than actually dealing with the relevant issues. If you’d wanted to see if the above countries face boycotts, it would have taken you as long as it took me – about two minutes. So you’re going out of your way to avoid seeing evidence that you don’t like.

I put this down to him being young and probably never having had to physically fight his way out of a situation – and gained the insight that sometimes you might find yourself in a fight and the only thing to do is get on and win it rather than ponder how it has happened.

This analogy says a lot about the mindset of right-wing Israeli apologists. What would “getting on and win it” look like exactly?

If you’re in a fight with a stranger in the street, you need to fight hard enough for long enough to let you escape to safety. This is utterly unlike the situation in I/P.

It’s more like getting in a fist-fight with your next door neighbour. Sure, you can get on and win the fight, if you’re able. But, unless you actually kill him, he’s still going to be there tomorrow, next week, next year, and if you’ve just beaten the hell out of him it’s a safe bet that he’s going to be royally pissed off.

It’s no good for you to keep getting into fights when you step outside your front door. So your two options are either (i) to find some accommodation whereby you two can live next to each other without constantly getting into fights or either of your getting killed or (ii) to actually kill him.

That is the fight Israel is involved in. Peace agreements may exist with Egypt and Jordan but I wouldn’t, and the Israelis won’t, bet their houses on them not being governed by people who wish to take a completely different tack.

One of the easiest mistakes when thinking about I/P is to compartmentalise it into the small portions which suit the many parties to the conflict.

Is is a conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs around them. This might sound a tad old fashioned but that’s what it is and was only rebranded as the Israel / Palestine conflict once the Arab nations realised they could not win militarily. Hence the promotion of the Palestinians rights and the relinquishment of Egyptian and Jordanian claims for the land.

The Palestinians are only one of Israel’s neighbours. Their rights are genuine but they will have to compromise to be in a position to start enjoying them.

As far as my analogy of a fight revealing the mindset of the right-wing Israeli apologists – I suggest that helps reveal the mindset of people such as yourself who focus on only one part of the conflict and ignore the wider context.

You don’t have to tolerate the belief to tolerate the believer. As long as religious people keep their religious arguments and lobbying for theocratic laws and the like away from me I can get along with them just fine.

In other words, the religion is the root problem, not the person. Again, Zionism is a manifestation of Judaism as a religion.

“As long as religious people keep their religious arguments and lobbying for theocratic laws and the like away from me I can get along with them just fine.”

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but religious people generally aren’t going to do that (especially those who proselytise), so just get used to it. There’s as much point in getting upset about it, or their manifestations, as getting hot under the collar shouting “Liar, liar” at every time you see a commercial on TV.

“Ok Kojak. So your view is that Israel is involved in a fight with all the Arabic countries of the middle east, and your advice is that they should just get on and win that fight.

But you didn’t answer my question: what would an Israeli victory look like?”

If you are at all uncertain about whether the countries belonging to the Arab League are living in peaceful contentment with Israel just look at their statements since inception. There’s nothing like the 3 no’s (no to peace, no to recognition and no to surrender – Kartoum 1968) to show their opinion.

Since then I don’t see many Arab nations running to form diplomatic relations with Israel. It’s a bit hard to criticise America’s silly stance towards Cuba without at the same time criticising the position the Arab League adopts towards Israel.

As to what an Israeli victory looks like – you are looking at it.

It’s far from ideal but they are living, trading, successfully being their own independent nation.

So you’re saying I should do or say nothing next time people want to change abortion law and infringe on the rights of women due to their outdated religious beliefs? That I should remain silent whilst Christian MPs try to push for ‘opt-in’ (they mean opt-out of course) web censorship just because some sites might contain pornography? Should I remain silent at the continued refusal to allow people to authorise doctors to end their life on their behalf when unable to do so themselves, all because of the absurd religious notion of the ‘sanctity of life’?

And as it happens, false advertising does make me angry, yes. Why? Maybe because I don’t like the idea that people are using public platforms to intentionally mislead and deceive.

What else would you expect? This is as much my country as everyone else’s, should people try to force their stupid antiquated beliefs on me or the people I care about I have every right to be bloody well intolerant of it. That doesn’t mean I go around insulting and abusing anyone else who expresses their belief in their own surroundings, because I’m not on some one-man crusade. People should be allowed to figure things out for themselves, rather than having it dictated to them, and they certainly shouldn’t be dictating them back to anyone else.

my opinion is my opinion.i dont think i am superior to anybody elses opinion in here and i dont say i am always right,but judging by the responce to my opinion i have posted here i love to tickle the belly of the self superior far left bullys and that i have done.bty.lets start imposing sanctions on the muslim brotherhood in egypt for there appalling discrimination against the coptic christians and women.how about robert mugabe in zimbabwe,not to forget the rwanda goverment for there incursions into the congo.come on lets impose santions on all nations deemed to be oppressing there people,why just isreal?/

Dude, the problem isn’t with your opinion in itself, so much as that as presented it’s completely unfounded. You’ve made a very unpleasant and, to my knowledge, completely undeserved accusation against Sunny. As you did sweet FA to support said allegation, my working hypothesis is that you like to go around slandering people because you can’t actually back up your own prejudices.

“but judging by the responce to my opinion i have posted here i love to tickle the belly of the self superior far left bullys and that i have done.”

Word to the wise: trolling is less effective when you openly admit to being a troll.

“It’s far from ideal but they are living, trading, successfully being their own independent nation.”
Are they not dependent on US aid. As a right winger, Kojak I thought you despised the dependency culture

@75. stuart: “lets start imposing sanctions on the muslim brotherhood in egypt for there appalling discrimination against the coptic christians and women.how about robert mugabe in zimbabwe,not to forget the rwanda goverment for there incursions into the congo.come on lets impose santions on all nations deemed to be oppressing there people,why just isreal?”

Or let us split the argument a bit.

1. Egypt/Muslim Brotherhood: the Muslim Brotherhood has been given a chance in that country to show its democratic credentials. Conclusion: screwed up, but insufficient for sanctions; we do not know enough.

2. Zimbabwe: Government and those associated with them are theoretically not permitted to rob the country that they have destroyed. Sanctions on Zimbabwe as a state, rather than those applied to individuals, would deny innocent citizens or victims to get on with their lives. Conclusion: chase the thieves of Zimbabwe.

3. Rwanda. If Rwanda wants to become part of the Commonwealth of Nations, Rwanda has to act like one. The UK needs to act like one too.

I chuckled when I saw the word “Crusade” referring to yourself in your rant about religion and it’s tendency to force views upon others.

P .Diddy Re Comment 77:

” As a right winger, Kojak I thought you despised the dependency culture”

Ah, I see. Because I have a view of the I / P conflict which doesn’t condemn Israel alone and recognises how they and the others are stuck doing what they do – that makes me a ‘right winger’. Or was it that I mentioned the left’s blind spot regarding this issue?

Being independent doesn’t mean not receiving financial aid from others – unless you want to regard Germany, UK and a few othernet contributors as the only independent countries in the EU. Either way the deal between the US and Israel is mutually beneficial where Israel spends much of the money on US arm. America rarely does something for nothing.

Apologies for missing your post which I think you might have mistake for evasion or a slight.

“The only thing that’s obvious here is that certain people WANT Israel to be unfairly singled out because that allows them to engage in whataboutery rather than actually dealing with the relevant issues. If you’d wanted to see if the above countries face boycotts, it would have taken you as long as it took me – about two minutes. So you’re going out of your way to avoid seeing evidence that you don’t like.”

In all seriousness I responded to the Wikipedia list which you linked to in Comment 49. The list mentioned only 2 nations Israel and Denmark. For it not to include any others means their boycotts are not of a comparable scale or that no one has bothered to update the page to show them. One thing about that people who organise BDS campaigns is that they are not slow in making such amendments so I read it that there were no further nations.

My question in Comment 65:
“Do you or anyone else on LC support the boycott of Denmark as well?”

The straight forward option is to declare the Israeli state a terrorist organisation and apply the relevant international sanctions on trade and finance. Heaven knows, the Israelis have organised enough massacres of Palestinians through the decades to support charges of terrorism and illegal occupation and settlement of occupied territory as well as systematic human rights violations, extending even to the harassment of children going to schools.

“the Israelis have organised enough massacres of Palestinians through the decades to support charges of terrorism and illegal occupation and settlement of occupied territory as well as systematic human rights violations, extending even to the harassment of children going to schools.”

Ah, I see. Because I have a view of the I / P conflict which doesn’t condemn Israel alone and recognises how they and the others are stuck doing what they do – that makes me a ‘right winger’. Or was it that I mentioned the left’s blind spot regarding this issue?
Who said I was left wing. I stated you were right of centre because of former posts which all had a right of centre slant. If you can direct me to a link where I can be proved wrong. Please do.
Also why is the I/P always discussed as a left / right issue. Israel has had a Labour government more years than any other. In fact the USSR was the first country to recognise Israel. Hamas gets most of its money from the Saudis (and they are not lefties)

“Unless you want to regard Germany, UK and a few others net contributors as the only independent countries in the EU.”
Those countries are not independent but dependent, hence their problems

“Either way the deal between the US and Israel is mutually beneficial where Israel spends much of the money on US arm. America rarely does something for nothing.”
The Republican Ron Paul would beg to differ. He states that most of the subsidy is arms. So Israel gets guns for free. He believes that the US gets nothing from the relationship. His view is that the biggest subsidy in history is due to misguided politics.

[…] opportunistic those actively behind the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) see a marvellous opportunity, after the recent bloodshed in Gaza and the proposed building of settlements in the E1 area of […]